Sweat the Small Stuff

Every civilization has had certain problems. The act of bringing together a large number of people has inherent difficulties regarding how people treat each other and their environment. Such a civilization that desires peace and harmony among its citizens institutes laws governing behaviors which would be a detriment to that harmony. It's not just the big laws that are important. Obviously laws are necessary to protect people from physical harm from others. But it's not the law that plays the biggest part in prevention of crime. The law goes hand in hand with punishment, which can only be enacted after the crime is committed. A law which prohibits assault does not keep the angry person from committing assault. It punishes him after the fact.

That which plays this biggest part in prevention of crime is more fundamental. It is the societal taboo system at work. When society as a whole frowns upon and takes seriously those crimes it considers harmful to itself, societal pressures play a huge part in prevention of those crimes. A person who knows that everyone will think poorly of his actions is less likely to perform a criminal act. When those societal strictures break down, when apathy rears its head and removes those barriers, the pressure to act responsibly is relieved, allowing a greater number of crimes to take place without retribution.

Malcolm Gladwell hits this point quite well in his book, 'The Tipping Point', when he discusses crime and the standard of living in New York City in the 1980's. Mr. Gladwell points out that crime has a certain epidemic quality to it, and much like your chances are increased of getting sick if you don't take care of the little things (washing your hands and bathing regularly, getting enough vitamins daily), when you allow the little crimes to slide without repercussions on the criminals then you run the risk of increasing levels of serious crimes as well.

This can be seen in many places around the United States right now, though we are hardly the only country with these problems. If you wander around any number of cities; Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta, etc. you can see the indicators of apathy practically everywhere. On a bright, beautifully sunny day I drove around Stockton, CA for an hour or so. I was looking for interesting architecture to shoot. Instead, I found this:



This is the problem. Not foreclosures, though they certainly contribute. Not unemployment, though that certainly adds to the problem and increases the number of people who feel they have nothing to do. The real problem leapt out at me when I stopped to shoot this scene. Apathy. The lack of concern about the small inconveniences and minor infractions lead to worsening conditions and eventually a society without those bonds which hold the center together.

In spite of advice and admonitions to 'don't sweat the small stuff', therein lies the solution. Sweat the small stuff. Make it go away. Dangerous epidemics are avoided by innoculating the citizenry with a vaccine. The efforts that go into such a widespread solution clearly indicate a desire to keep society as a whole healthy and safe. No less effort should be given to keep people safe from those minor annoyances that diminish the quality of life. Sweat the small stuff. Down with apathy!

Ah, forget it. It's not worth it.

D-Day Anniversary

As we pass the 65th anniversary of the Allies' storming of the Normandy beaches I think it fitting that we take a moment to remember not only those brave boys who stepped from their transports into a hail of gunfire but all who would put themselves in harm's way for the principles which make this country great. Bravery in the face of personal loss of liberty is one thing (and a fine thing) but those who would put their lives at risk to preserve the liberty of others are true heroes, which is a word thrown around much too loosely these days.

Omaha Beach in Normandie, France
These small stones were the 'shingles' which troops had to run through to get to the relative safety of the bluffs

There were five beaches the Allies landed on that day. Going from west to east, using their code names, they were Utah and Omaha, where the Americans landed and Gold, Juno and Sword, where the British and Canadians landed. German resistance was much lighter on Juno and Gold beaches. The worst beach for Allied casualties was Omaha beach, whose attacking American soldiers bore the brunt of the roughly 9000 casualties that day.

While the events of June 6th, 1944 are covered extremely well in Cornelius Ryan's book, 'The Longest Day' (later made into a wonderfully done movie of the same name), one thing that must be remembered is the fact that there were still 11 more months of fighting in the European Theatre remaining. As the Allies tried to push south and east farther inland, German resistance was staggering. The city of Caen a short distance from Sword beach was supposed to be taken by the British General Bernard Law Montgomery within 72 hours of D-Day. In fact, it took almost a month before Caen would fall to the Allies, and only after the almost utter destruction of every building in the city. One of the few still standing was the Caen Cathedral.

Caen Cathedral, in the Normadie region of France

After a month of small gains, the Allied Supreme Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower decided to re-institute General George S. Patton, giving him command of Third Army and telling him to break through the German lines. Patton's troops (of which my father was one), along with the rest of General Omar Bradley's 12th Army Group, proceeded to do just that. By the end of the war, Patton's Third Army had liberated over 12,000 towns, villages and cities, taken over 1 million German POWs and to ensure the relieval of the 101st Airborne at Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge, Third Army marched almost 100 miles in the course of two days, going straight into combat on the third day and pushing back the German offensive.

So let's tip our hat to all those who would put their own lives on the line so that others may breathe free air.

Salute!

Too Many Solved Mysteries

When I was a boy of 6 or 7 I got my first book on bigfoot. Within a year I was reading about the Bermuda Triangle and the Loch Ness Monster. Ah, what great days those were. Leonard Nimoy's voice saying what we were 'In Search Of'. The thrill of picturing Sasquatch carrying Albert Ostman to his hidden lair deep in the woods, the wonder at how Flight 19 could just disappear (along with the rescue plane sent to look for them) practically in sight of land. Not knowing if they really did crash (maybe they flew through a time warp!) or where the Titanic was. Not knowing.

It seems clear that the important part about not knowing is that it causes a person's mind to create a probable scenario, an answer that fits the bill. And as children, new in the world and surrounded by mysteries, one seems as plausible as any other. Why couldn't bigfoot exist? How do you know there aren't other dimensions? The child's mind (or at least this child's mind) could believe almost anything if said with enough reverence and awe.

But now look around the world. Bigfoot turned out to be a guy in a monkey suit, Loch Ness was a badly faked photo and a tourist trap and They actually found Flight 19 and the Titantic! Bastards.

I understand the reason why people go searching for the answers to mysteries in life is because they're fascinated by them too. It's the same reason we (collectively) wanted to split the atom. Because we could. But when you take mystery away from a child the world just seems a dull and scary place, with no wonder or amazement to it. It's the mystery which tells the child we don't know everything yet, it's ok not to know some things.

So maybe I was a foolish kid. Maybe even at 10 I knew that those footprints around the earth-moving equipment weren't really from a giant humanoid. Maybe I knew there were no plesiosaurs in a peaty, boggy loch in Scotland. But even at 37 there's one thing I do know. They can't take the Mary Celeste away from me.

Amend That!

I'm convinced that the main reason why the First and Second Amendments have received so much attention for the past several decades is laziness. We, as high schoolers, never really read farther into the Bill of Rights. And it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that these Rights were set down as Rights given to the people by the government.

However, if one reads the entire document it becomes evident that the writers of the Constitution didn't trust government anymore than we should. Each Amendment is written in such a way as to convey the idea that they are not 'Rights bestowed upon the People' but rather inherent rights that the government in no measure may abridge or eliminate. These Articles of Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are not even written 'to the People'. It's clear from their wording that they are written to the government, defining the boundaries of power.

Here's a good example:

Article Four
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated....."

Charters of Freedom

This is something that's important to remember: the Government doesn't decide what 'Rights' we have, we do. And in Article Nine, the Constitution goes one step further;

Article Nine

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.

making sure that the government doesn't try any funny business. Just because the right isn't specifically granted in the Constitution doesn't mean that it doesn't belong to the People.

It's important for U.S. citizens to know what the Constitution says for a number of reasons. Not least of which is that you don't know when you're being taken advantage of if you don't know your rights. But also because it's bad to base your opinions on faulty and inaccurate information.

Just as the old expression 'Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it' warns against ignorance of the past, the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution warn against ignorance of the present.

Of course, there's no question which Amendment is my favorite. It's one that wouldn't even have been needed if it weren't for another Amendment. Guess which one and register as a follower on my blog, and you will be entered to win a free 8x10 contact lith print.

Drawing will be closed and held on June 15th. Odds of winning depend upon number of entries. Winner will be the first to identify correctly my favorite Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Being 'First' will be decided by the internet time stamp of your post.

Proof most people have a 'fairness' streak

Or, how people act irrationally

There was an interesting social experiment crafted in the early 20th century, designed to show how people related to others on the subject of economic 'fairness'.

The experimentor would place two people in a room together. The rules of the experiment were these:

The two people would share $10 to be given to them. Person A would determine the split of the money, i.e. who of them would receive each percentage, determined solely by Person A.

Person B would then decide whether to accept the percentage split decided upon by Person A. If Person B did not accept, neither person would receive anything. Both parties were aware of this potential outcome.

The results of the experiment (which can be repeated today with much the same results) showed that people valued what they perceived as fairness more than financial gain. For example:

Even if Person A decided on a 90/10 split, that is to say Person A would receive $9 and Person B would receive $1, the rational economic decision for Person B would be for them to accept it, since they would receive $1 as opposed to receiving nothing by rejecting the deal. However, on the few instances where Person A did make such a lopsided proposal, Person B rejected the deal overwhelmingly.

Even more interesting, a vast percentage of people representing Person A proposed splits either 50/50 or very close to the middle split. This showed that either Person A would not take advantage of their power in choosing the split, or that Person A knew that by taking advantage of that power, Person B would punish them by rejecting the offer, presumably because Person A felt that this is what they would do if the situation were reversed.

This is a good example, I believe, of social conceptions of equality overpowering the desire of financial gain.

Note though, that when this experiment has been done in different societies around the globe, the outcomes varied widely. In various parts of the world, Person A would indeed offer a 90/10 split, and more times than not, Person B would accept the offer. These acceptance percentages went to nearly 100% when Person B was told that Person A was of a higher social class than Person B.

Food for thought.

2nd week of May, 1770

It was 239 years ago. Lieutenant James Cook, in charge of HMS Endeavour on a voyage of science and exploration, had just spent time charting the coastline of New Zealand for the first time in history. His charts would be so precise that they would be used by mariners until the mid 20th century. Determined to follow his orders to find the mysterious 'southern continent' if one should exist, he sailed west, maintaining the high latitudes of the southern hemisphere.

It was inevitable that he would rediscover a land whose borders and shores with which no living man was familiar. He had found the east coast of modern day Australia. Named New Holland at the time, an excerpt of Cook's journals follows:

Sunday, May 6th, In the evening the yawl return'd from fishing, having caught two Sting rays weighing near 600 pounds. The great quantity of New Plants &c M Banks and D Solander collected in this place occasioned my giveing it the name of Botany Bay.

Cook would go one to chart the east coast of Australia, get caught in the maze that is the Great Barrier Reef, and sail home a year later. He would return to the South Pacific twice more, charting and exploring new lands until finally meeting his demise in Kealakakua Bay in Hawaii.

Truly one of the greatest explorers in history, James Cook would go on to inspire a short lived science fiction television show and a long lived series of movies about exploration. James Kirk would borrow a quote from Cook, and though the words were slightly different, the meaning stayed the same.

James Cook wrote in his journal that he:

"...had ambition not only to go farther than any one had been before, but as far as it was possible for man to go."

His determination, intelligence and fortune held him in good stead until that bad day in Hawaii. During his three voyages he sailed more than 70,000 miles in a wooden vessel which, for the bulk of their time at sea, would move no faster than a man could walk.

Patience. A virtue, indeed.

Tatoos

When I was young, which wasn't all that long ago, the only people who were branded with tatoos were sailors and bikers. While I can't say I ever admired them, tatoos served a useful purpose in that they let me know the person wearing one was either military or someone whose sister you didn't want to date and then forget to call. No thought was given as to whether the tatoo was attractive or not, it simply served as a warning to others that the tatooed was a person to be given a wide berth.

But for some reason, the popularity of tatooing has grown exponentially with the younger population today. Everywhere you look, teenage girls are bending over, revealing their 'tramp stamp', the tatoo just below the small of the back, presumably put there for the viewing pleasure of their 'beau du jour'.

I suppose I' m just old-fashioned. I can't see how permanently disfiguring one's body can be seen to be attractive. The purpose of the tatoo is still the same, however. To make a declaration to the viewing world. It used to be that a person got a tatoo to be considered a 'rebel', someone outside of mainstream culture. Nowadays, it's the in thing to do. In the past, people got tatooed to show that they were different, and often times to show that they cared little for the opinions of the general public. Now, it seems like it's done for no other reason than to conform with peer pressure. It's an announcement that you are part of the group.

Does this phenomenon show a change in cultural thinking? In the Seventies, tatoos made a statement that you were independent, didn't need or care about society and valued individuality. In the Oughts, it seems like collectivism is being valued and prized, that fitting in means more than standing out. This seems to be born out by the direction that voters have taken in regards to their preferred government. The hive, or sheep mentality is in full effect.

Overall, I think I preferred the biker tats of the bygone era. At least with those guys, you knew where you stood. You stood behind them, and preferrably at a distance. Of course, nowadays, you still stand behind the tatooed. It's just, with tramp stamps, you stand a little closer.